draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-08.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-09.txt 
Network Working Group W. Sun, Ed. Network Working Group W. Sun, Ed.
Internet-Draft SJTU Internet-Draft SJTU
Intended status: Standards Track G. Zhang, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track G. Zhang, Ed.
Expires: February 3, 2010 CATR Expires: February 3, 2010 CATR
September 8, 2009 September 27, 2009
Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamic Provisioning Performance Metrics in Label Switched Path (LSP) Dynamic Provisioning Performance Metrics in
Generalized MPLS Networks Generalized MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-08.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-dppm-09.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 11, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract Abstract
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most
promising candidate technologies for future data transmission promising candidate technologies for future data transmission
network. GMPLS has been developed to control and operate different network. GMPLS has been developed to control and operate different
kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches, kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches,
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add- Drop Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add-Drop
Multiplexers (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross- Multiplexers (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-
connects (OXCs), etc. Dynamic provisioning ability of these connects (OXCs), etc. The dynamic provisioning ability of these
physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. At physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. At
the same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is the same time, the need for dynamically provisioned connections is
increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro increasing because optical networks are being deployed in metro
areas. As different applications have varied requirements in the areas. As different applications have varied requirements in the
provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to provisioning performance of optical networks, it is imperative to
define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance define standardized metrics and procedures such that the performance
of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other. of networks and application needs can be mapped to each other.
This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate This document provides a series of performance metrics to evaluate
the dynamic LSP provisioning performance in GMPLS networks, the dynamic LSP provisioning performance in GMPLS networks,
specifically the dynamic LSP setup/release performance. These specifically the dynamic LSP setup/release performance. These
metrics can depict the features of GMPLS networks in LSP dynamic metrics can be used to characterize the features of GMPLS networks in
provisioning. LSP dynamic provisioning.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Overview of Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Overview of Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. A Singleton Definition for Single Uni-directional LSP 4. A Singleton Definition for Single Unidirectional LSP Setup
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. A Singleton Definition for multiple Uni-directional LSP 5. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Unidirectional LSP
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. A Singleton Definition for Single Bi-directional LSP 6. A Singleton Definition for Single Bidirectional LSP Setup
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. A Singleton Definition for multiple Bi-directional LSPs
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. A Singleton Definition for LSP Graceful Release Delay . . . . 22 7. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Bidirectional LSPs
8.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. A Definition for Samples of Single Uni-directional LSP 8. A Singleton Definition for LSP Graceful Release Delay . . . . 25
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.2. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.3. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.4. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8.5. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.7. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.7.1. With no LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.7.2. With a number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 28
10. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Uni-directional LSPs 9. A Definition for Samples of Single Unidirectional LSP
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9.7.1. With no LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 31 9.7.2. With a number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 31
9.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
11. A Definition for Samples of Single Bi-directional LSP 10. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Unidirectional LSPs
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 34 10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 34
10.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Bi-directional LSPs 11. A Definition for Samples of Single Bidirectional LSP Setup
Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 11.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 11.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 11.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 11.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
12.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 11.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
12.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 11.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
12.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 11.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
12.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
12.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 37 11.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 37
11.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
13. A Definition for Samples of LSP Graceful Release Delay . . . . 38 12. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Bidirectional LSPs
13.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Setup Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 12.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 12.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 12.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 12.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12.7. Typical testing cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12.7.1. With No LSP in the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
12.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network . . . . . . . . . 40
12.8. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report . . . . . . 40 13. A Definition for Samples of LSP Graceful Release Delay . . . . 41
14.1. The Minimum of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 13.1. Metric Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14.2. The Median of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 13.2. Metric Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14.3. The percentile of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 13.3. Metric Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14.4. Failure statistics of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 13.4. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14.4.1. Failure Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 13.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
14.4.2. Failure Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 13.6. Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
13.7. Metric Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
15. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 14. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report . . . . . . 43
14.1. The Minimum of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14.2. The Median of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14.3. The Maximum of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14.4. The Percentile of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14.5. Failure statistics of Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
14.5.1. Failure Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
14.5.2. Failure Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 15. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
17. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
18. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 17. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 18. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is one of the most
promising control plane solutions for future transport and service promising control plane solutions for future transport and service
network. GMPLS has been developed to control and operate different network. GMPLS has been developed to control and operate different
kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches, kinds of network elements, such as conventional routers, switches,
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add-Drop Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add-Drop
Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross- Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-
connects (OXCs), etc. Dynamic provisioning ability of these connects (OXCs), etc. The dynamic provisioning ability of these
physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically. physically diverse devices differs from each other drastically.
The introduction of a control plane into optical circuit switching The introduction of a control plane into optical circuit switching
networks provides the basis for automating the provisioning of networks provides the basis for automating the provisioning of
connections and drastically reduces connection provision delay. As connections and drastically reduces connection provision delay. As
more and more services and applications are seeking to use GMPLS more and more services and applications are seeking to use GMPLS
controlled networks as their underlying transport network, and controlled networks as their underlying transport network, and
increasingly in a dynamic way, the need is growing for measuring and increasingly in a dynamic way, the need is growing for measuring and
characterizing the performance of LSP provisioning in GMPLS networks, characterizing the performance of LSP provisioning in GMPLS networks,
such that requirement from applications and the provisioning such that requirement from applications and the provisioning
capability of the network can be mapped to each other. capability of the network can be mapped to each other.
This draft defines performance metrics and methodologies that can be This draft defines performance metrics and methodologies that can be
used to depict the dynamic LSP provisioning performance of GMPLS used to characterize the dynamic LSP provisioning performance of
networks, more specifically, performance of the signaling protocol. GMPLS networks, more specifically, performance of the signaling
The metrics defined in this document can be used to depict the protocol. The metrics defined in this document can be used to
average performance of GMPLS implementations. characterize the average performance of GMPLS implementations.
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Overview of Performance Metrics 3. Overview of Performance Metrics
In this memo, to depict the dynamic LSP provisioning performance of a In this memo, to characterize the dynamic LSP provisioning
GMPLS network, we define 3 performance metrics: uni-directional LSP performance of a GMPLS network, we define 3 performance metrics:
setup delay, bi-directional LSP setup delay, and LSP graceful release unidirectional LSP setup delay, bidirectional LSP setup delay, and
delay. The latency of the LSP setup/release signal is conceptually LSP graceful release delay. The latency of the LSP setup/release
similar to the Round-trip Delay in IP networks. This enables us to signal is conceptually similar to the Round-trip Delay in IP
refer to the structures and notions introduced and discussed in the networks. This enables us to refer to the structures and notions
IPPM Framework document, [RFC2330] [RFC2679] [RFC2681]. The reader introduced and discussed in the IPPM Framework document, [RFC2330]
is assumed to be familiar with the notions in those documents. [RFC2679] [RFC2681]. The reader is assumed to be familiar with the
notions in those documents.
Note that data path related metrics, for example, the time between Note that data path related metrics, for example, the time between
the reception of RESV message by ingress node and forward data path the reception of Resv message by ingress node and forward data path
becomes operational, are defined in another document becomes operational, are defined in another document
[I-D.sun-ccamp-dpm]. An implementation MAY choose whether to [I-D.sun-ccamp-dpm]. An implementation MAY choose whether to
implement metrics in the two documents together. However, it is implement metrics in the two documents together. However, it is
RECOMMENDED that both measurements are performed to complement each RECOMMENDED that both measurements are performed to complement each
other. other.
4. A Singleton Definition for Single Uni-directional LSP Setup Delay 4. A Singleton Definition for Single Unidirectional LSP Setup Delay
This part defines a metric for single uni-directional Label Switched This part defines a metric for single unidirectional Label Switched
Path setup delay across a GMPLS network. Path setup delay across a GMPLS network.
4.1. Motivation 4.1. Motivation
Single uni-directional Label Switched Path setup delay is useful for Single unidirectional Label Switched Path setup delay is useful for
several reasons: several reasons:
o Single LSP setup delay is an important metric that depicts the o Single LSP setup delay is an important metric that characterizes
provisioning performance of a GMPLS network. Longer LSP setup the provisioning performance of a GMPLS network. Longer LSP setup
delay will most likely incur higher overhead for the requesting delay will most likely incur higher overhead for the requesting
application, especially when the LSP duration itself is comparable application, especially when the LSP duration itself is comparable
to the LSP setup delay. to the LSP setup delay.
o The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the o The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when the LSP traversed the delay that will likely be experienced when the LSP traversed the
shortest route at the lightest load in the control plane. As the shortest route at the lightest load in the control plane. As the
delay itself consists of several components, such as link delay itself consists of several components, such as link
propagation delay and nodal processing delay, this metric also propagation delay and nodal processing delay, this metric also
reflects the status of control plane. For example, for LSPs reflects the status of control plane. For example, for LSPs
traversing the same route, longer setup delays may suggest traversing the same route, longer setup delays may suggest
congestion in the control channel or high control element load. congestion in the control channel or high control element load.
For this reason, this metric is useful for testing and diagnostic For this reason, this metric is useful for testing and diagnostic
purposes. purposes.
o The observed variance in a sample of LSP setup delay metric values o The observed variance in a sample of LSP setup delay metric values
variance may serve as an early indicator on the feasibility of variance may serve as an early indicator on the feasibility of
support of applications that have stringent setup delay support of applications that have stringent setup delay
requirements. requirements.
The measurement of single uni-directional LSP setup delay instead of The measurement of single unidirectional LSP setup delay instead of
bi-directional LSP setup delay is motivated by the following factors: bidirectional LSP setup delay is motivated by the following factors:
o Some applications may use only uni-directional LSPs rather than o Some applications may use only unidirectional LSPs rather than
bi-directional ones. For example, content delivery services with bidirectional ones. For example, content delivery services with
multicasting may use only uni-directional LSPs. multicasting may use only unidirectional LSPs.
4.2. Metric Name 4.2. Metric Name
single uni-directional LSP setup delay Single unidirectional LSP setup delay
4.3. Metric Parameters 4.3. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o T, a time when the setup is attempted o T, a time when the setup is attempted
4.4. Metric Units 4.4. Metric Units
The value of single uni-directional LSP setup delay is either a real The value of single unidirectional LSP setup delay is either a real
number, or an undefined number of milliseconds. number, or an undefined number of milliseconds.
4.5. Definition 4.5. Definition
The single uni-directional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to The single unidirectional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to
egress node ID1 [RFC3945] at T is dT means that ingress node ID0 egress node ID1 [RFC3945] at T is dT means that ingress node ID0
sends the first bit of a PATH message packet to egress node ID1 at sends the first bit of a Path message packet to egress node ID1 at
wire-time T, and that ingress node ID0 received the last bit of wire-time T, and that ingress node ID0 received the last bit of
responding RESV message packet from egress node ID1 at wire-time responding Resv message packet from egress node ID1 at wire-time
T+dT. T+dT.
The single uni-directional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to The single unidirectional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to
egress node ID1 at T is undefined, means that ingress node ID0 sends egress node ID1 at T is undefined, means that ingress node ID0 sends
the first bit of PATH message packet to egress node ID1 at wire-time the first bit of Path message packet to egress node ID1 at wire-time
T and that ingress node ID0 does not receive the corresponding RESV T and that ingress node ID0 does not receive the corresponding Resv
message within a reasonable period of time. message within a reasonable period of time.
The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Single Uni- The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Single
directional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count or Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count
an percentage of Single Uni-directional LSP Setup failures. See or a percentage of Single Unidirectional LSP Setup failures. See
section Section 14.4 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures. Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.
4.6. Discussion 4.6. Discussion
The following issues are likely to come up in practice: The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
o The accuracy of uni-directional LSP setup delay at time T depends o The accuracy of unidirectional LSP setup delay at time T depends
on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization
between the ingress node and egress node is not required since between the ingress node and egress node is not required since
uni-directional LSP setup uses two-way signaling. unidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may
accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic
cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical
motion may take several milliseconds. But the common electronic motion may take several milliseconds. But the common electronic
switches can finish the nodal processing within several switches can finish the nodal processing within several
microseconds. So the uni-directional LSP setup delay varies microseconds. So the unidirectional LSP setup delay varies
drastically from one network to another. In practice, the upper drastically from one network to another. In practice, the upper
bound should be chosen carefully and the value MUST be reported. bound SHOULD be chosen carefully and the value MUST be reported.
o If ingress node sends out the PATH message to set up an LSP, but o If ingress node sends out the Path message to set up an LSP, but
never receives the corresponding RESV message, the uni-directional never receives the corresponding Resv message, the unidirectional
LSP setup delay MUST be set to undefined. LSP setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
o If the ingress node sends out the PATH message to set up an LSP o If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up an LSP
but receives a PathErr message, the uni-directional LSP setup but receives a PathErr message, the unidirectional LSP setup delay
delay MUST be set to undefined. There are many possible reasons MUST be set to undefined. There are many possible reasons for
for this case. For example, the PATH message has invalid this case. For example, the Path message has invalid parameters
parameters or the network does not have enough resource to set up or the network does not have enough resource to set up the
the requested LSP, etc. requested LSP, etc.
4.7. Methodologies 4.7. Methodologies
Generally the methodology would proceed as follows: Generally the methodology would proceed as follows:
o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the
requested LSP. requested LSP.
o At the ingress node, form the PATH message according to the LSP o At the ingress node, form the Path message according to the LSP
requirements. A timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the requirements. A timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the
ingress node when the PATH message packet is sent towards the ingress node when the Path message packet is sent towards the
egress node. egress node.
o If the corresponding RESV message arrives within a reasonable o If the corresponding Resv message arrives within a reasonable
period of time, take the timestamp (T2) as soon as possible upon period of time, take the timestamp (T2) as soon as possible upon
receipt of the message. By subtracting the two timestamps, an receipt of the message. By subtracting the two timestamps, an
estimate of uni-directional LSP setup delay (T2 -T1) can be estimate of unidirectional LSP setup delay (T2 -T1) can be
computed. computed.
o If the corresponding RESV message fails to arrive within a o If the corresponding Resv message fails to arrive within a
reasonable period of time, the uni-directional LSP setup delay is reasonable period of time, the unidirectional LSP setup delay is
deemed to be undefined. Note that the 'reasonable' threshold is a deemed to be undefined. Note that the 'reasonable' threshold is a
parameter of the methodology. parameter of the methodology.
o If the corresponding response message is PathErr, the uni- o If the corresponding response is a PathErr message, the
directional LSP setup delay is deemed to be undefined. unidirectional LSP setup delay is deemed to be undefined.
5. A Singleton Definition for multiple Uni-directional LSP Setup Delay 4.8. Metric Reporting
This part defines a metric for multiple uni-directional Label The metric result (either a real or an undefined value) MUST be
Switched Paths setup delay across a GMPLS network. reported together with the selected uppper bound. The route that the
LSP tranverses MUST also be reported.
5. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Unidirectional LSP Setup Delay
This part defines a metric for multiple unidirectional Label Switched
Paths setup delay across a GMPLS network.
5.1. Motivation 5.1. Motivation
Multiple uni-directional Label Switched Paths setup delay is useful Multiple unidirectional Label Switched Paths setup delay is useful
for several reasons: for several reasons:
o Carriers may require a large number of LSPs be set up during a o Carriers may require a large number of LSPs be set up during a
short time period. This request may arise e.g. as a consequence short time period. This request may arise e.g. as a consequence
to interruptions on established LSPs or other network failures. to interruptions on established LSPs or other network failures.
o The time needed to setup a large number of LSPs during a short o The time needed to setup a large number of LSPs during a short
time period can not be deduced from single LSP setup delay. time period can not be deduced from single LSP setup delay.
5.2. Metric Name 5.2. Metric Name
Multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay
5.3. Metric Parameters 5.3. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o Lambda_m, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds o Lambda_m, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds
o X, the number of LSPs to setup o X, the number of LSPs to setup
o T, a time when the first setup is attempted o T, a time when the first setup is attempted
5.4. Metric Units 5.4. Metric Units
The value of multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay is either a The value of multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay is either a
real number, or an undefined number of milliseconds. real number, or an undefined number of milliseconds.
5.5. Definition 5.5. Definition
Given Lambda_m and X, the multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay Given Lambda_m and X, the multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay
from the ingress node to the egress node [RFC3945] at T is dT means: from the ingress node to the egress node [RFC3945] at T is dT means:
o ingress node ID0 sends the first bit of the first PATH message o ingress node ID0 sends the first bit of the first Path message
packet to egress node ID1 at wire-time T packet to egress node ID1 at wire-time T
o all subsequent (X-1) PATH messages are sent according to the o all subsequent (X-1) Path messages are sent according to the
specified Poisson process with arrival rate Lambda_m specified Poisson process with arrival rate Lambda_m
o ingress node ID0 receives all corresponding RESV message packets o ingress node ID0 receives all corresponding Resv message packets
from egress node ID1, and from egress node ID1, and
o ingress node ID0 receives the last RESV message packet at wire- o ingress node ID0 receives the last Resv message packet at wire-
time T+dT time T+dT
The multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay at T is undefined, The multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay at T is undefined, means
means that ingress node ID0 sends all the PATH messages toward egress that ingress node ID0 sends all the Path messages toward egress node
node ID1 and the first bit of the first PATH message packet is sent ID1 and the first bit of the first Path message packet is sent at
at wire-time T and that ingress node ID0 does not receive one or more wire-time T and that ingress node ID0 does not receive one or more of
of the corresponding RESV messages within a reasonable period of the corresponding Resv messages within a reasonable period of time.
time.
The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Multiple The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Multiple
Uni-directional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count
count or an percentage of Multiple Uni-directional LSP Setup or a percentage of Multiple Unidirectional LSP Setup failures. See
failures. See section Section 14.4 for definitions of LSP setup/ Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.
release failures.
5.6. Discussion 5.6. Discussion
The following issues are likely to come up in practice: The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
o The accuracy of multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay at time o The accuracy of multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay at time T
T depends on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but depends on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but
synchronization between the ingress node and egress node is not synchronization between the ingress node and egress node is not
required since uni-directional LSP setup uses two-way signaling. required since unidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may
accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic
cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical
motion may take several milliseconds. But electronic switches can motion may take several milliseconds. But electronic switches can
finish the nodal processing within several microseconds. So the finish the nodal processing within several microseconds. So the
multiple uni-directional LSP setup delay varies drastically from multiple unidirectional LSP setup delay varies drastically from
one network to another. In practice, the upper bound should be one network to another. In practice, the upper bound SHOULD be
chosen carefully and the value MUST be reported. chosen carefully and the value MUST be reported.
o If ingress node sends out the multiple PATH messages to set up the o If ingress node sends out the multiple Path messages to set up the
LSPs, but never receives one or more of the corresponding RESV LSPs, but never receives one or more of the corresponding Resv
messages, multiple uni-directional LSP setup delay MUST be set to messages, multiple unidirectional LSP setup delay MUST be set to
undefined. undefined.
o If ingress node sends out the PATH messages to set up the LSPs but o If ingress node sends out the Path messages to set up the LSPs but
receives one or more PathErr messages, multiple uni-directional receives one or more PathErr messages, multiple unidirectional
LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined. There are many LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined. There are many
possible reasons for this case. For example, one of the PATH possible reasons for this case. For example, one of the Path
messages has invalid parameters or the network has not enough messages has invalid parameters or the network has not enough
resource to set up the requested LSPs, etc. resource to set up the requested LSPs, etc.
o The arrival rate of the Poisson process Lambda_m should be chosen o The arrival rate of the Poisson process Lambda_m SHOULD be chosen
carefully such that in the one hand the control plane is not carefully such that in the one hand the control plane is not
overburdened. On the other hand, the arrival rate is large enough overburdened. On the other hand, the arrival rate is large enough
to meet the requirements of applications or services. to meet the requirements of applications or services.
5.7. Methodologies 5.7. Methodologies
Generally the methodology would proceed as follows: Generally the methodology would proceed as follows:
o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the
requested LSPs. requested LSPs.
o At the ingress node, form the PATH messages according to the LSPs' o At the ingress node, form the Path messages according to the LSPs'
requirements. requirements.
o At the ingress node, select the time for each of the PATH messages o At the ingress node, select the time for each of the Path messages
according to the specified Poisson process. according to the specified Poisson process.
o At the ingress node, send out the PATH messages according to the o At the ingress node, send out the Path messages according to the
selected time. selected time.
o Store a timestamp (T1) locally on the ingress node when the first o Store a timestamp (T1) locally on the ingress node when the first
PATH message packet is sent towards the egress node. Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.
o If all of the corresponding RESV messages arrive within a o If all of the corresponding Resv messages arrive within a
reasonable period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon reasonable period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon
as possible upon the receipt of all the messages. By subtracting as possible upon the receipt of all the messages. By subtracting
the two timestamps, an estimate of multiple uni-directional LSPs the two timestamps, an estimate of multiple unidirectional LSPs
setup delay (T2 -T1) can be computed. setup delay (T2 -T1) can be computed.
o If one or more of the corresponding RESV messages fail to arrive o If one or more of the corresponding Resv messages fail to arrive
within a reasonable period of time, the multiple uni-directional within a reasonable period of time, the multiple unidirectional
LSPs setup delay is deemed to be undefined. Note that the LSPs setup delay is deemed to be undefined. Note that the
'reasonable' threshold is a parameter of the methodology. 'reasonable' threshold is a parameter of the methodology.
o If one or more of the corresponding response messages are PathErr, o If one or more of the corresponding response are PathErr messages,
the multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay is deemed to be the multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay is deemed to be
undefined. undefined.
6. A Singleton Definition for Single Bi-directional LSP Setup Delay 5.8. Metric Reporting
GMPLS allows establishment of bi-directional symmetric LSPs (not of The metric result (either a real or an undefined value) MUST be
asymmetric LSPs). This part defines a metric for single bi- reported together with the selected uppper bound. The route that the
directional LSP setup delay across a GMPLS network. LSPs tranverse MUST also be reported.
6. A Singleton Definition for Single Bidirectional LSP Setup Delay
GMPLS allows establishment of bidirectional symmetric LSPs (not of
asymmetric LSPs). This part defines a metric for single
bidirectional LSP setup delay across a GMPLS network.
6.1. Motivation 6.1. Motivation
Single bi-directional Label Switched Path setup delay is useful for Single bidirectional Label Switched Path setup delay is useful for
several reasons: several reasons:
o LSP setup delay is an important metric that depicts the o LSP setup delay is an important metric that characterizes the
provisioning performance of a GMPLS network. Longer LSP setup provisioning performance of a GMPLS network. Longer LSP setup
delay will incur higher overhead for the requesting application, delay will incur higher overhead for the requesting application,
especially when the LSP duration is comparable to the LSP setup especially when the LSP duration is comparable to the LSP setup
delay. Thus, measuring the setup delay is important for delay. Thus, measuring the setup delay is important for
application scheduling. application scheduling.
o The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the o The minimum value of this metric provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when the LSP traversed the delay that will likely be experienced when the LSP traversed the
shortest route at the lightest load in the control plane. As the shortest route at the lightest load in the control plane. As the
delay itself consists of several components, such as link delay itself consists of several components, such as link
skipping to change at page 16, line 38 skipping to change at page 17, line 38
reflects the status of control plane. For example, for LSPs reflects the status of control plane. For example, for LSPs
traversing the same route, longer setup delays may suggest traversing the same route, longer setup delays may suggest
congestion in the control channel or high control element load. congestion in the control channel or high control element load.
For this reason, this metric is useful for testing and diagnostic For this reason, this metric is useful for testing and diagnostic
purposes. purposes.
o LSP setup delay variance has different impact on applications. o LSP setup delay variance has different impact on applications.
Erratic variation in LSP setup delay makes it difficult to support Erratic variation in LSP setup delay makes it difficult to support
applications that have stringent setup delay requirement. applications that have stringent setup delay requirement.
The measurement of single bi-directional LSP setup delay instead of The measurement of single bidirectional LSP setup delay instead of
uni-directional LSP setup delay is motivated by the following unidirectional LSP setup delay is motivated by the following factors:
factors:
o Bi-directional LSPs are seen as a requirement for many GMPLS o Bidirectional LSPs are seen as a requirement for many GMPLS
networks. Its provisioning performance is important to networks. Its provisioning performance is important to
applications that generate bi-directional traffic. applications that generate bidirectional traffic.
6.2. Metric Name 6.2. Metric Name
Single bi-directional LSP setup delay Single bidirectional LSP setup delay
6.3. Metric Parameters 6.3. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o T, a time when the setup is attempted o T, a time when the setup is attempted
6.4. Metric Units 6.4. Metric Units
The value of single bi-directional LSP setup delay is either a real The value of single bidirectional LSP setup delay is either a real
number, or an undefined number of milliseconds. number, or an undefined number of milliseconds.
6.5. Definition 6.5. Definition
For a real number dT, the single bi-directional LSP setup delay from For a real number dT, the single bidirectional LSP setup delay from
ingress node ID0 to egress node ID1 at T is dT, means that ingress ingress node ID0 to egress node ID1 at T is dT, means that ingress
node ID0 sends out the first bit of a PATH message including an node ID0 sends out the first bit of a Path message including an
Upstream Label [RFC3473] heading for egress node ID1 at wire-time T, Upstream Label [RFC3473] heading for egress node ID1 at wire-time T,
egress node ID1 receives that packet, then immediately sends a RESV egress node ID1 receives that packet, then immediately sends a Resv
message packet back to ingress node ID0, and that ingress node ID0 message packet back to ingress node ID0, and that ingress node ID0
receives the last bit of the RESV message packet at wire-time T+dT. receives the last bit of the Resv message packet at wire-time T+dT.
The single bi-directional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to The single bidirectional LSP setup delay from ingress node ID0 to
egress node ID1 at T is undefined, means that ingress node ID0 sends egress node ID1 at T is undefined, means that ingress node ID0 sends
the first bit of PATH message to egress node ID1 at wire-time T and the first bit of Path message to egress node ID1 at wire-time T and
that ingress node ID0 does not receive that response packet within a that ingress node ID0 does not receive that response packet within a
reasonable period of time. reasonable period of time.
The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Single Bi- The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Single
directional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count or Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count
an percentage of Single Bi-directional LSP Setup failures. See or a percentage of Single Bidirectional LSP Setup failures. See
section Section 14.4 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures. Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.
6.6. Discussion 6.6. Discussion
The following issues are likely to come up in practice: The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
o The accuracy of single bi-directional LSP setup delay depends on o The accuracy of single bidirectional LSP setup delay depends on
the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization
between the ingress node and egress node is not required since between the ingress node and egress node is not required since
single bi-directional LSP setup uses two-way signaling. single bidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may
accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic
cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical
motion may take several milliseconds. But electronic switches can motion may take several milliseconds. But electronic switches can
finish the nodal processing within several microseconds. So the finish the nodal processing within several microseconds. So the
bi-directional LSP setup delay varies drastically from one network bidirectional LSP setup delay varies drastically from one network
to another. In the process of bi-directional LSP setup, if the to another. In the process of bidirectional LSP setup, if the
downstream node overrides the label suggested by the upstream downstream node overrides the label suggested by the upstream
node, the setup delay may also increase. Thus, in practice, the node, the setup delay may also increase. Thus, In practice, the
upper bound should be chosen carefully and the value MUST be upper bound SHOULD be chosen carefully and the value MUST be
reported. reported.
o If the ingress node sends out the PATH message to set up the LSP, o If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up the LSP,
but never receives the corresponding RESV message, single bi- but never receives the corresponding Resv message, single
directional LSP setup delay MUST be set to undefined. bidirectional LSP setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
o If the ingress node sends out the PATH message to set up the LSP, o If the ingress node sends out the Path message to set up the LSP,
but receives PathErr message, single bi-directional LSP setup but receives a PathErr message, single bidirectional LSP setup
delay MUST be set to undefined. There are many possible reasons delay MUST be set to undefined. There are many possible reasons
for this case. For example, the PATH message has invalid for this case. For example, the Path message has invalid
parameters or the network has not enough resource to set up the parameters or the network has not enough resource to set up the
requested LSP. requested LSP.
6.7. Methodologies 6.7. Methodologies
Generally the methodology would proceed as follows: Generally the methodology would proceed as follows:
o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the
requested LSP. requested LSP.
o At the ingress node, form the PATH message (including the Upstream o At the ingress node, form the Path message (including the Upstream
Label or suggested label) according to the LSP requirements. A Label or suggested label) according to the LSP requirements. A
timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the ingress node when the timestamp (T1) may be stored locally on the ingress node when the
PATH message packet is sent towards the egress node. Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.
o If the corresponding RESV message arrives within a reasonable o If the corresponding Resv message arrives within a reasonable
period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon as possible period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon as possible
upon the receipt of the message. By subtracting the two upon the receipt of the message. By subtracting the two
timestamps, an estimate of bi-directional LSP setup delay (T2 -T1) timestamps, an estimate of bidirectional LSP setup delay (T2 -T1)
can be computed. can be computed.
o If the corresponding RESV message fails to arrive within a o If the corresponding Resv message fails to arrive within a
reasonable period of time, the single bi-directional LSP setup reasonable period of time, the single bidirectional LSP setup
delay is deemed to be undefined. Note that the 'reasonable' delay is deemed to be undefined. Note that the 'reasonable'
threshold is a parameter of the methodology. threshold is a parameter of the methodology.
o If the corresponding response message is PathErr, the single bi- o If the corresponding response is a PathErr message, the single
directional LSP setup delay is deemed to be undefined. bidirectional LSP setup delay is deemed to be undefined.
7. A Singleton Definition for multiple Bi-directional LSPs Setup Delay 6.8. Metric Reporting
This part defines a metric for multiple bi-directional LSPs setup The metric result (either a real or an undefined value) MUST be
reported together with the selected uppper bound. The route that the
LSP tranverses MUST also be reported.
7. A Singleton Definition for Multiple Bidirectional LSPs Setup Delay
This part defines a metric for multiple bidirectional LSPs setup
delay across a GMPLS network. delay across a GMPLS network.
7.1. Motivation 7.1. Motivation
multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay is useful for several Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay is useful for several
reasons: reasons:
o Upon traffic interruption caused by network failure or network o Upon traffic interruption caused by network failure or network
upgrade, carriers may require a large number of LSPs be set up upgrade, carriers may require a large number of LSPs be set up
during a short time period during a short time period
o The time needed to setup a large number of LSPs during a short o The time needed to setup a large number of LSPs during a short
time period can not be deduced by single LSP setup delay time period can not be deduced by single LSP setup delay
7.2. Metric Name 7.2. Metric Name
Multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay
7.3. Metric Parameters 7.3. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o Lambda_m, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds o Lambda_m, a rate in reciprocal milliseconds
o X, the number of LSPs to setup o X, the number of LSPs to setup
o T, a time when the first setup is attempted o T, a time when the first setup is attempted
7.4. Metric Units 7.4. Metric Units
The value of multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay is either a The value of multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay is either a real
real number, or an undefined number of milliseconds. number, or an undefined number of milliseconds.
7.5. Definition 7.5. Definition
Given Lambda_m and X, for a real number dT, the multiple bi- Given Lambda_m and X, for a real number dT, the multiple
directional LSPs setup delay from ingress node to egress node at T is bidirectional LSPs setup delay from ingress node to egress node at T
dT, means that: is dT, means that:
o ingress node ID0 sends the first bit of the first PATH message o Ingress node ID0 sends the first bit of the first Path message
heading for egress node ID1 at wire-time T heading for egress node ID1 at wire-time T
o all subsequent (X-1) PATH messages are sent according to the o All subsequent (X-1) Path messages are sent according to the
specified Poisson process with arrival rate Lambda_m specified Poisson process with arrival rate Lambda_m
o ingress node ID1 receives all corresponding RESV message packets o Ingress node ID1 receives all corresponding Resv message packets
from egress node ID1, and from egress node ID1, and
o ingress node ID0 receives the last RESV message packet at wire- o Ingress node ID0 receives the last Resv message packet at wire-
time T+dT time T+dT
The multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay from ingress node to The multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay from ingress node to
egress node at T is undefined, means that ingress node sends all the egress node at T is undefined, means that ingress node sends all the
PATH messages to egress node and that the ingress node fails to Path messages to egress node and that the ingress node fails to
receive one or more of the response RESV messages within a reasonable receive one or more of the response Resv messages within a reasonable
period of time. period of time.
The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Multiple Bi- The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of Multiple
directional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count or Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure, and would be used to report a count
an percentage of Multiple Bi-directional LSP Setup failures. See or a percentage of Multiple Bidirectional LSP Setup failures. See
section Section 14.4 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures. Section 14.5 for definitions of LSP setup/release failures.
7.6. Discussion 7.6. Discussion
The following issues are likely to come up in practice: The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
o The accuracy of multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay depends o The accuracy of multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay depends on
on the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization the clock resolution in the ingress node; but synchronization
between the ingress node and egress node is not required since bi- between the ingress node and egress node is not required since
directional LSP setup uses two-way signaling. bidirectional LSP setup uses two-way signaling.
o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine o A given methodology will have to include a way to determine
whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very whether a latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very
large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may large. Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But GMPLS networks may
accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic accommodate many kinds of devices. For example, some photonic
cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical cross-connects (PXCs) have to move micro mirrors. This physical
motion may take several milliseconds. But electronic switches can motion may take several milliseconds. But electronic switches can
finish the nodal process within several microseconds. So the finish the nodal process within several microseconds. So the
multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay varies drastically from a multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay varies drastically from a
network to another. In the process of multiple bi-directional network to another. In the process of multiple bidirectional LSPs
LSPs setup, if the downstream node overrides the label suggested setup, if the downstream node overrides the label suggested by the
by the upstream node, the setup delay may also increase. Thus, in upstream node, the setup delay may also increase. Thus, In
practice, the upper bound should be chosen carefully and the value practice, the upper bound SHOULD be chosen carefully and the value
MUST be reported. MUST be reported.
o If the ingress node sends out the PATH messages to set up the o If the ingress node sends out the Path messages to set up the
LSPs, but never receives all the corresponding RESV messages, the LSPs, but never receives all the corresponding Resv messages, the
multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined. multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
o If the ingress node sends out the PATH messages to set up the o If the ingress node sends out the Path messages to set up the
LSPs, but receives one or more responding PathErr messages, the LSPs, but receives one or more responding PathErr messages, the
multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined. multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay MUST be set to undefined.
There are many possible reasons for this case. For example, one There are many possible reasons for this case. For example, one
or more of the PATH messages have invalid parameters or the or more of the Path messages have invalid parameters or the
network has not enough resource to set up the requested LSPs. network has not enough resource to set up the requested LSPs.
o The arrival rate of the Poisson process Lambda_m should be o The arrival rate of the Poisson process Lambda_m SHOULD be
carefully chosen such that on the one hand the control plane is carefully chosen such that on the one hand the control plane is
not overburdened. On the other hand, the arrival rate is large not overburdened. On the other hand, the arrival rate is large
enough to meet the requirements of applications or services. enough to meet the requirements of applications or services.
7.7. Methodologies 7.7. Methodologies
Generally the methodology would proceed as follows: Generally the methodology would proceed as follows:
o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the o Make sure that the network has enough resource to set up the
requested LSPs. requested LSPs.
o At the ingress node, form the PATH messages (including the o At the ingress node, form the Path messages (including the
Upstream Label or suggested label) according to the LSPs' Upstream Label or suggested label) according to the LSPs'
requirements. requirements.
o At the ingress node, select the time for each of the PATH messages o At the ingress node, select the time for each of the Path messages
according to the specified Poisson process. according to the specified Poisson process.
o At the ingress node, send out the PATH messages according to the o At the ingress node, send out the Path messages according to the
selected time. selected time.
o Store a timestamp (T1) locally in the ingress node when the first o Store a timestamp (T1) locally in the ingress node when the first
PATH message packet is sent towards the egress node. Path message packet is sent towards the egress node.
o If all of the corresponding RESV messages arrive within a o If all of the corresponding Resv messages arrive within a
reasonable period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon reasonable period of time, take the final timestamp (T2) as soon
as possible upon the receipt of all the messages. By subtracting as possible upon the receipt of all the messages. By subtracting
the two timestamps, an estimate of multiple bi-directional LSPs the two timestamps, an estimate of multiple bidirectional LSPs
setup delay (T2 -T1) can be computed. setup delay (T2 -T1) can be computed.
o If one or more of the corresponding RESV messages fail to arrive o If one or more of the corresponding Resv messages fail to arrive
within a reasonable period of time, the multiple bi-directional within a reasonable period of time, the multiple bidirectional
LSPs setup delay is deemed to be undefined. Note that the LSPs setup delay is deemed to be undefined. Note that the
'reasonable' threshold is a parameter of the methodology. 'reasonable' threshold is a parameter of the methodology.
o If one or more of the corresponding response messages are PathErr, o If one or more of the corresponding response are PathErr messages,
the multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay is deemed to be the multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay is deemed to be
undefined. undefined.
7.8. Metric Reporting
The metric result (either a real or an undefined value) MUST be
reported together with the selected uppper bound. The route that the
LSPs tranverse MUST also be reported.
8. A Singleton Definition for LSP Graceful Release Delay 8. A Singleton Definition for LSP Graceful Release Delay
There are two different kinds of LSP release mechanisms in GMPLS There are two different kinds of LSP release mechanisms in GMPLS
networks: graceful release and forceful release. This document does networks: graceful release and forceful release. This document does
not take forceful LSP release procedure into account. not take forceful LSP release procedure into account.
8.1. Motivation 8.1. Motivation
LSP graceful release delay is useful for several reasons: LSP graceful release delay is useful for several reasons:
skipping to change at page 22, line 50 skipping to change at page 25, line 50
8.5. Definition 8.5. Definition
There are two different LSP graceful release procedures, one is There are two different LSP graceful release procedures, one is
initiated by the ingress node, and another is initiated by the egress initiated by the ingress node, and another is initiated by the egress
node. The two procedures are depicted in [RFC3473]. We define the node. The two procedures are depicted in [RFC3473]. We define the
graceful LSP release delay for these two procedures separately. graceful LSP release delay for these two procedures separately.
For a real number dT, the LSP graceful release delay from ingress For a real number dT, the LSP graceful release delay from ingress
node ID0 to egress node ID1 at T is dT, means that ingress node ID0 node ID0 to egress node ID1 at T is dT, means that ingress node ID0
sends the first bit of a PATH message including Admin Status Object sends the first bit of a Path message including Admin Status Object
with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set to the egress node at with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set to the egress node at
wire-time T, that egress node ID1 receives that packet, then wire-time T, that egress node ID1 receives that packet, then
immediately sends a RESV message including Admin Status Object with immediately sends a Resv message including Admin Status Object with
the Delete (D) bit set back to the ingress node. Ingress node ID0 the Delete (D) bit set back to the ingress node. Ingress node ID0
sends out PathTear downstream to remove the LSP, and egress node ID1 sends out PathTear downstream to remove the LSP, and egress node ID1
receives the last bit of PathTear packet at wire-time T+dT. receives the last bit of PathTear packet at wire-time T+dT.
Also as an option, upon receipt of the PATH message including Admin Also as an option, upon receipt of the Path message including Admin
Status Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set, egress Status Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set, egress
node ID1 may respond with PathErr message with the Path_State_Removed node ID1 may respond with a PathErr message with the
flag set. Path_State_Removed flag set.
The LSP graceful release delay from ingress node ID0 to egress node The LSP graceful release delay from ingress node ID0 to egress node
ID1 at T is undefined, means that ingress node ID0 sends the first ID1 at T is undefined, means that ingress node ID0 sends the first
bit of PATH message to egress node ID1 at wire-time T and that bit of Path message to egress node ID1 at wire-time T and that
(either egress node does not receive the PATH packet, egress node (either egress node does not receive the Path packet, egress node
does not send corresponding RESV message packet in response, or does not send corresponding Resv message packet in response, or
ingress node does not receive that RESV packet, and) egress node ID1 ingress node does not receive that Resv packet, and) egress node ID1
does not receive the PathTear within a reasonable period of time. does not receive the PathTear within a reasonable period of time.
The LSP graceful release delay from egress node ID1 to ingress node The LSP graceful release delay from egress node ID1 to ingress node
ID0 at T is dT, means that egress node ID1 sends the first bit of a ID0 at T is dT, means that egress node ID1 sends the first bit of a
RESV message including Admin Status Object with setting the Reflect Resv message including Admin Status Object with setting the Reflect
(R) and Delete (D) bits to ingress node at wire-time T. Ingress node (R) and Delete (D) bits to ingress node at wire-time T. Ingress node
ID0 sends out PathTear downstream to remove the LSP, and egress node ID0 sends out PathTear downstream to remove the LSP, and egress node
ID1 receives the last bit of PathTear packet at wire-time T+dT. ID1 receives the last bit of PathTear packet at wire-time T+dT.
The LSP graceful release delay from egress node ID1 to ingress node The LSP graceful release delay from egress node ID1 to ingress node
ID0 at T is undefined, means that egress node ID1 sends the first bit ID0 at T is undefined, means that egress node ID1 sends the first bit
of RESV message including Admin Status Object with setting the of Resv message including Admin Status Object with setting the
Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits to ingress node ID0 at wire-time T Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits to ingress node ID0 at wire-time T
and that (either ingress node does not receive the RESV packet, or and that (either ingress node does not receive the Resv packet, or
ingress node does not send PathTear message packet in response, and) ingress node does not send PathTear message packet in response, and)
egress node ID1 does not receive the PathTear within a reasonable egress node ID1 does not receive the PathTear within a reasonable
period of time. period of time.
The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of LSP Graceful The undefined value of this metric indicates an event of LSP Graceful
Release Failure, and would be used to report a count or an percentage Release Failure, and would be used to report a count or a percentage
of LSP Graceful Release failures. See section Section 14.4 for of LSP Graceful Release failures. See Section 14.5 for definitions
definitions of LSP setup/release failures. of LSP setup/release failures.
8.6. Discussion 8.6. Discussion
The following issues are likely to come up in practice: The following issues are likely to come up in practice:
o In the first (second) circumstance, the accuracy of LSP graceful o In the first (second) circumstance, the accuracy of LSP graceful
release delay at time T depends on the clock resolution in the release delay at time T depends on the clock resolution in the
ingress (egress) node. In the first circumstance, synchronization ingress (egress) node. In the first circumstance, synchronization
between the ingress node and egress node is required; but not in between the ingress node and egress node is required; but not in
the second circumstance; the second circumstance;
o A given methodology has to include a way to determine whether a o A given methodology has to include a way to determine whether a
latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very large. latency value is infinite or whether it is merely very large.
Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But the upper bound should be Simple upper bounds MAY be used. But the upper bound SHOULD be
chosen carefully in practice and the value MUST be reported; chosen carefully in practice and the value MUST be reported;
o In the first circumstance, if the ingress node sends out PATH o In the first circumstance, if the ingress node sends out Path
message including Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and message including Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and
Delete (D) bits set to initiate LSP graceful release, but the Delete (D) bits set to initiate LSP graceful release, but the
egress node never receives the corresponding PathTear message, LSP egress node never receives the corresponding PathTear message, LSP
graceful release delay MUST be set to undefined. graceful release delay MUST be set to undefined.
o In the second circumstance, if the egress node sends out the RESV o In the second circumstance, if the egress node sends out the Resv
message including Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and message including Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and
Delete (D) bits set to initiate LSP graceful release, but never Delete (D) bits set to initiate LSP graceful release, but never
receives the corresponding PathTear message, LSP graceful release receives the corresponding PathTear message, LSP graceful release
delay MUST be set to undefined. delay MUST be set to undefined.
8.7. Methodologies 8.7. Methodologies
In the first circumstance, the methodology may proceed as follows: In the first circumstance, the methodology may proceed as follows:
o Make sure the LSP to be deleted is set up; o Make sure the LSP to be deleted is set up;
o At the ingress node, form the PATH message including Admin Status o At the ingress node, form the Path message including Admin Status
Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set. A timestamp Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set. A timestamp
(T1) may be stored locally on the ingress node when the PATH (T1) may be stored locally on the ingress node when the Path
message packet is sent towards the egress node; message packet is sent towards the egress node;
o Upon receiving the PATH message including Admin Status Object with o Upon receiving the Path message including Admin Status Object with
the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set, the egress node sends a the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set, the egress node sends a
RESV message including Admin Status Object with the Delete (D) and Resv message including Admin Status Object with the Delete (D) and
Reflect (R) bits set. Alternatively, the egress node sends a Reflect (R) bits set. Alternatively, the egress node sends a
PathErr message with the Path_State_Removed flag set upstream; PathErr message with the Path_State_Removed flag set upstream;
o When the ingress node receive the RESV message or the PathErr o When the ingress node receive the Resv message or the PathErr
message, it sends a PathTear message to remove the LSP; message, it sends a PathTear message to remove the LSP;
o The egress node takes a timestamp (T2) once it receives the last o The egress node takes a timestamp (T2) once it receives the last
bit of the PathTear message. The LSP graceful release delay is bit of the PathTear message. The LSP graceful release delay is
then (T2-T1). then (T2-T1).
o If the ingress node sends the PATH message downstream, but the o If the ingress node sends the Path message downstream, but the
egress node fails to receive the PathTear message within a egress node fails to receive the PathTear message within a
reasonable period of time, the LSP graceful release delay is reasonable period of time, the LSP graceful release delay is
deemed to be undefined. Note that the 'reasonable' threshold is a deemed to be undefined. Note that the 'reasonable' threshold is a
parameter of the methodology. parameter of the methodology.
In the second circumstance, the methodology would proceed as follows: In the second circumstance, the methodology would proceed as follows:
o Make sure the LSP to be deleted is set up; o Make sure the LSP to be deleted is set up;
o On the egress node, form the RESV message including Admin Status o On the egress node, form the Resv message including Admin Status
Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set. A timestamp Object with the Reflect (R) and Delete (D) bits set. A timestamp
may be stored locally on the egress node when the RESV message may be stored locally on the egress node when the Resv message
packet is sent towards the ingress node; packet is sent towards the ingress node;
o Upon receiving the Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and o Upon receiving the Admin Status Object with the Reflect (R) and
Delete (D) bits set in the RESV message, the ingress node sends a Delete (D) bits set in the Resv message, the ingress node sends a
PathTear message downstream to remove the LSP; PathTear message downstream to remove the LSP;
o Egress node takes a timestamp (T2) once it receives the last bit o Egress node takes a timestamp (T2) once it receives the last bit
of the PathTear message. The LSP graceful release delay is then of the PathTear message. The LSP graceful release delay is then
(T2-T1). (T2-T1).
o If the egress node sends the RESV message upstream, but it fails o If the egress node sends the Resv message upstream, but it fails
to receive the PathTear message within a reasonable period of to receive the PathTear message within a reasonable period of
time, the LSP graceful release delay is deemed to be undefined. time, the LSP graceful release delay is deemed to be undefined.
Note that the 'reasonable' threshold is a parameter of the Note that the 'reasonable' threshold is a parameter of the
methodology. methodology.
9. A Definition for Samples of Single Uni-directional LSP Setup Delay 8.8. Metric Reporting
In Section 4, we have defined the singleton metric of Single uni- The metric result (either a real or an undefined value) MUST be
directional LSP setup delay. Now we define how to get one particular reported together with the selected uppper bound and the procedure
sample of Single uni-directional LSP setup delay. Sampling is to used (eg. either from the ingress node to the egress node, or from
select a particular potion of singleton values of the given the egress node to the ingress node. See Section 8.5 for more
details). The route that the LSP tranverses MUST also be reported.
9. A Definition for Samples of Single Unidirectional LSP Setup Delay
In Section 4, we have defined the singleton metric of Single
unidirectional LSP setup delay. Now we define how to get one
particular sample of Single unidirectional LSP setup delay. Sampling
is to select a particular potion of singleton values of the given
parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an
example. example.
9.1. Metric Name 9.1. Metric Name
Single uni-directional LSP setup delay sample Single unidirectional LSP setup delay sample
9.2. Metric Parameters 9.2. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o T0, a time o T0, a time
o Tf, a time o Tf, a time
skipping to change at page 26, line 44 skipping to change at page 29, line 44
9.3. Metric Units 9.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are: A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time when setup is attempted o T, a time when setup is attempted
o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds. o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds.
9.4. Definition 9.4. Definition
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate Lambda, and
ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times
in this process, we obtain the value of uni-directional LSP setup in this process, we obtain the value of unidirectional LSP setup
delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence
made up of the resulting <time, LSP setup delay> pairs. If there are made up of the resulting <time, LSP setup delay> pairs. If there are
no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said
to be empty. to be empty.
9.5. Discussion 9.5. Discussion
The parameter lambda should be carefully chosen. If the rate is too The parameter Lambda should be carefully chosen. If the rate is too
high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high
overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high overhead will overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high overhead will
increase uni-directional LSP setup delay. On the other hand if the increase unidirectional LSP setup delay. On the other hand if the
rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect the dynamic rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect the dynamic
provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The appropriate provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The appropriate
lambda value depends on the given network. Lambda value depends on the given network.
The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching
technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP
under different traffic may also vary significantly. under different traffic may also vary significantly.
In the case of active measurement, the parameters Th should be In the case of active measurement, the parameters Th should be
carefully chosen. The combination of lambda and Th reflects the load carefully chosen. The combination of Lambda and Th reflects the load
of the network. The selection of Th should take into account that of the network. The selection of Th should take into account that
the network has sufficient resource to perform subsequent tests. The the network has sufficient resource to perform subsequent tests. The
value of Th MAY be constant during one sampling process for value of Th MAY be constant during one sampling process for
simplicity considerations. simplicity considerations.
Note that for online or passive measurements, the arrival rate and Note that for online or passive measurements, the arrival rate and
LSP holding time are determined by actual traffic, hence in this case LSP holding time are determined by actual traffic, hence in this case
Lambda and Th are not input parameters. Lambda and Th are not input parameters.
It is important that in obtaining a sample all the LSPs MUST traverse
the same route. Ways to realize this is outside the scope of this
document. However, it is desirable that the method used have minimal
impact on the signaling process and the method SHOULD be reported.
9.6. Methodologies 9.6. Methodologies
o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and
o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton uni- o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton unidirectional
directional LSP setup delay, and obtain the value of uni- LSP setup delay, and obtain the value of unidirectional LSP setup
directional LSP setup delay delay
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
skipping to change at page 28, line 4 skipping to change at page 31, line 6
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
9.7. Typical testing cases 9.7. Typical testing cases
9.7.1. With no LSP in the Network 9.7.1. With no LSP in the Network
9.7.1.1. Motivation 9.7.1.1. Motivation
Single uni-directional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is Single unidirectional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is
important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when an LSP traverses the delay that will likely be experienced when an LSP traverses the
shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane. shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane.
9.7.1.2. Methodologies 9.7.1.2. Methodologies
Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the
methodologies described in Section 9.6. methodologies described in Section 9.6
9.7.2. With a number of LSPs in the Network 9.7.2. With a number of LSPs in the Network
9.7.2.1. Motivation 9.7.2.1. Motivation
Single uni-directional LSP setup delay with a number of LSPs in the Single unidirectional LSP setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
network is important because it reflects the performance of an network is important because it reflects the performance of an
operational network with considerable load. This delay may vary operational network with considerable load. This delay may vary
significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary. It can be used as significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary. It can be used as
a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation. a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.
9.7.2.2. Methodologies 9.7.2.2. Methodologies
Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches
a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in
Section 9.6. Section 9.6.
10. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Uni-directional LSPs Setup 9.8. Metric Reporting
The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
reported together with the total number of values. The context under
which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used MUST also be
reported.
10. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Unidirectional LSPs Setup
Delay Delay
In Section 5, we have defined the singleton metric of multiple uni- In Section 5, we have defined the singleton metric of multiple
directional LSPs setup delay. Now we define how to get one unidirectional LSPs setup delay. Now we define how to get one
particular sample of multiple uni-directional LSP setup delay. particular sample of multiple unidirectional LSP setup delay.
Sampling is to select a particular potion of singleton values of the Sampling is to select a particular potion of singleton values of the
given parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an given parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an
example. example.
10.1. Metric Name 10.1. Metric Name
Multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay sample Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay sample
10.2. Metric Parameters 10.2. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o T0, a time o T0, a time
o Tf, a time o Tf, a time
o Lambda_m, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds o Lambda_m, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
o Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds o Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
o X, the number of LSPs to setup o X, the number of LSPs to setup
o Th, LSP holding time o Th, LSP holding time
o Td, the maximum waiting time for successful multiple uni- o Td, the maximum waiting time for successful multiple
directional LSPs setup unidirectional LSPs setup
10.3. Metric Units 10.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are: A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time when the first setup is attempted o T, a time when the first setup is attempted
o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds. o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds.
10.4. Definition 10.4. Definition
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate Lambda, and
ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the time and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the time
in this process, we obtain the value of multiple uni-directional LSP in this process, we obtain the value of multiple unidirectional LSP
setup delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the setup delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the
sequence made up of the resulting <time, setup delay> pairs. If sequence made up of the resulting <time, setup delay> pairs. If
there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the
sample is said to be empty. sample is said to be empty.
10.5. Discussion 10.5. Discussion
The parameter lambda is used as arrival rate of "bacth uni- The parameter Lambda is used as arrival rate of "bacth unidirectional
directional LSPs setup" operation. It regulates the interval in LSPs setup" operation. It regulates the interval in between each
between each batch operation. The parameter lambda_m is used within batch operation. The parameter Lambda_m is used within each batch
each batch operation, as described in Section 5. operation, as described in Section 5
The parameters lambda and lambda_m should be carefully chosen. If The parameters Lambda and Lambda_m should be carefully chosen. If
the rate is too high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will the rate is too high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will
result in high overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high result in high overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high
overhead will increase uni-directional LSP setup delay. On the other overhead will increase unidirectional LSP setup delay. On the other
hand if the rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect hand if the rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect
the dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The the dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The
appropriate lambda and lambda_m value depends on the given network. appropriate Lambda and Lambda_m value depends on the given network.
The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching
technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP
under different traffic may also vary significantly. under different traffic may also vary significantly.
It is important that in obtaining a sample all the LSPs MUST traverse
the same route. Ways to realize this is outside the scope of this
document. However, it is desirable that the method used have minimal
impact on the signaling process and the method SHOULD be reported.
10.6. Methodologies 10.6. Methodologies
o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and
o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton multiple uni- o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton multiple
directional LSPs setup delay, and obtain the value of multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay, and obtain the value of multiple
uni-directional LSPs setup delay unidirectional LSPs setup delay
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
skipping to change at page 31, line 4 skipping to change at page 34, line 6
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
10.7. Typical testing cases 10.7. Typical testing cases
10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network 10.7.1. With No LSP in the Network
10.7.1.1. Motivation 10.7.1.1. Motivation
Multiple uni-directional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network Multiple unidirectional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is
is important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when LSPs traverse the shortest delay that will likely be experienced when LSPs traverse the shortest
route with the lightest load in the control plane. route with the lightest load in the control plane.
10.7.1.2. Methodologies 10.7.1.2. Methodologies
Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the
methodologies described in Section 10.6. methodologies described in Section 10.6.
10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network 10.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network
10.7.2.1. Motivation 10.7.2.1. Motivation
Multiple uni-directional LSPs setup delay with a number of LSPs in Multiple unidirectional LSPs setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
the network is important because it reflects the performance of an network is important because it reflects the performance of an
operational network with considerable load. This delay can vary operational network with considerable load. This delay can vary
significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary. It can be used as significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary. It can be used as
a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation. a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.
10.7.2.2. Methodologies 10.7.2.2. Methodologies
Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches
a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in
Section 10.6.. Section 10.6.
11. A Definition for Samples of Single Bi-directional LSP Setup Delay 10.8. Metric Reporting
In Section 6, we have defined the singleton metric of Single Bi- The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
directional LSP setup delay. Now we define how to get one particular reported together with the total number of values. The context under
sample of Single Bi-directional LSP setup delay. Sampling is to which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
select a particular potion of singleton values of the given route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used MUST also be
reported.
11. A Definition for Samples of Single Bidirectional LSP Setup Delay
In Section 6, we have defined the singleton metric of Single
Bidirectional LSP setup delay. Now we define how to get one
particular sample of Single Bidirectional LSP setup delay. Sampling
is to select a particular potion of singleton values of the given
parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an
example. example.
11.1. Metric Name 11.1. Metric Name
Single Bi-directional LSP setup delay sample with no LSP in the Single Bidirectional LSP setup delay sample with no LSP in the
network network
11.2. Metric Parameters 11.2. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o T0, a time o T0, a time
skipping to change at page 32, line 45 skipping to change at page 35, line 45
11.3. Metric Units 11.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are: A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time when setup is attempted o T, a time when setup is attempted
o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds. o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds.
11.4. Definition 11.4. Definition
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate Lambda, and
ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times
in this process, we obtain the value of Bi-directional LSP setup in this process, we obtain the value of bidirectional LSP setup delay
delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence sample at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up
made up of the resulting <time, LSP setup delay> pairs. If there are of the resulting <time, LSP setup delay> pairs. If there are no such
no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to be
to be empty. empty.
11.5. Discussion 11.5. Discussion
The parameters lambda should be carefully chosen. If the rate is too The parameters Lambda should be carefully chosen. If the rate is too
high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high
overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high overhead will overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high overhead will
increase Bi-directional LSP setup delay. On the other hand if the increase bidirectional LSP setup delay. On the other hand if the
rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect the dynamic rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect the dynamic
provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The appropriate provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The appropriate
lambda value depends on the given network. Lambda value depends on the given network.
The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching
technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP
under different traffic may also vary significantly. under different traffic may also vary significantly.
In the case of active measurement, the parameters Th should be In the case of active measurement, the parameters Th should be
carefully chosen. The combination of lambda and Th reflects the load carefully chosen. The combination of Lambda and Th reflects the load
of the network. The selection of Th SHOULD take into account that of the network. The selection of Th SHOULD take into account that
the network has sufficient resource to perform subsequent tests. The the network has sufficient resource to perform subsequent tests. The
value of Th MAY be constant during one sampling process for value of Th MAY be constant during one sampling process for
simplicity considerations. simplicity considerations.
Note that for online or passive measurements, the arrival rate and Note that for online or passive measurements, the arrival rate and
the LSP holding time are determined by actual traffic, hence in this the LSP holding time are determined by actual traffic, hence in this
case Lambda and Th are not input parameters. case Lambda and Th are not input parameters.
It is important that in obtaining a sample all the LSPs MUST traverse
the same route. Ways to realize this is outside the scope of this
document. However, it is desirable that the method used have minimal
impact on the signaling process and the method SHOULD be reported.
11.6. Methodologies 11.6. Methodologies
o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and
o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton bi-directional o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton bidirectional
LSP setup delay, and obtain the value of bi-directional LSP setup LSP setup delay, and obtain the value of bidirectional LSP setup
delay delay
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
11.7. Typical testing cases 11.7. Typical testing cases
11.7.1. With No LSP in the Network 11.7.1. With No LSP in the Network
11.7.1.1. Motivation 11.7.1.1. Motivation
Single bi-directional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is Single bidirectional LSP setup delay with no LSP in the network is
important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when an LSP traverses the delay that will likely be experienced when an LSP traverses the
shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane. shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane.
11.7.1.2. Methodologies 11.7.1.2. Methodologies
Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the
methodologies described in Section 11.6. methodologies described in Section 11.6.
11.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network 11.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network
11.7.2.1. Motivation 11.7.2.1. Motivation
Single bi-directional LSP setup delay with a number of LSPs in the Single bidirectional LSP setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
network is important because it reflects the performance of an network is important because it reflects the performance of an
operational network with considerable load. This delay can vary operational network with considerable load. This delay can vary
significantly as the number of existing LSPs varies. It can be used significantly as the number of existing LSPs varies. It can be used
as a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation. as a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.
11.7.2.2. Methodologies 11.7.2.2. Methodologies
Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches
a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in
Section 11.6. . Section 11.6.
12. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Bi-directional LSPs Setup 11.8. Metric Reporting
The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
reported together with the total number of values. The context under
which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used MUST also be
reported.
12. A Definition for Samples of Multiple Bidirectional LSPs Setup
Delay Delay
In Section 7, we have defined the singleton metric of multiple bi- In Section 7, we have defined the singleton metric of multiple
directional LSPs setup delay. Now we define how to get one bidirectional LSPs setup delay. Now we define how to get one
particular sample of multiple bi-directional LSP setup delay. particular sample of multiple bidirectional LSP setup delay.
Sampling is to select a particular potion of singleton values of the Sampling is to select a particular potion of singleton values of the
given parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an given parameters. Like in [RFC2330], we use Poisson sampling as an
example. example.
12.1. Metric Name 12.1. Metric Name
Multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay sample Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay sample
12.2. Metric Parameters 12.2. Metric Parameters
o ID0, the ingress LSR ID o ID0, the ingress LSR ID
o ID1, the egress LSR ID o ID1, the egress LSR ID
o T0, a time o T0, a time
o Tf, a time o Tf, a time
o Lambda_m, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds o Lambda_m, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
o Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds o Lambda, a rate in the reciprocal milliseconds
o X, the number of LSPs to setup o X, the number of LSPs to setup
o Th, LSP holding time o Th, LSP holding time
o Td, the maximum waiting time for successful multiple uni- o Td, the maximum waiting time for successful multiple
directional LSPs setup unidirectional LSPs setup
12.3. Metric Units 12.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are: A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time when the first setup is attempted o T, a time when the first setup is attempted
o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds. o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds.
12.4. Definition 12.4. Definition
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate Lambda, and
ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times
in this process, we obtain the value of multiple uni-directional LSP in this process, we obtain the value of multiple unidirectional LSP
setup delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the setup delay sample at this time. The value of the sample is the
sequence made up of the resulting <time, setup delay> pairs. If sequence made up of the resulting <time, setup delay> pairs. If
there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the there are no such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the
sample is said to be empty. sample is said to be empty.
12.5. Discussion 12.5. Discussion
The parameter lambda is used as arrival rate of "bacth bi-directional The parameter Lambda is used as arrival rate of "bacth bidirectional
LSPs setup" operation. It regulates the interval in between each LSPs setup" operation. It regulates the interval in between each
batch operation. The parameter lambda_m is used within each batch batch operation. The parameter Lambda_m is used within each batch
operation, as described in Section 7. operation, as described in Section 7.
The parameters lambda and lambda_m should be carefully chosen. If The parameters Lambda and Lambda_m should be carefully chosen. If
the rate is too high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will the rate is too high, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will
result in high overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high result in high overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high
overhead will increase uni-directional LSP setup delay. On the other overhead will increase unidirectional LSP setup delay. On the other
hand if the rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect hand if the rate is too low, the sample could not completely reflect
the dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The the dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The
appropriate lambda and lambda_m value depends on the given network. appropriate Lambda and Lambda_m value depends on the given network.
The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching The parameters Td should be carefully chosen. Different switching
technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect technologies may vary significantly in performing a cross-connect
operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP operation. At the same time, the time needed in setting up an LSP
under different traffic may also vary significantly. under different traffic may also vary significantly.
It is important that in obtaining a sample all the LSPs MUST traverse
the same route. Ways to realize this is outside the scope of this
document. However, it is desirable that the method used have minimal
impact on the signaling process and the method SHOULD be reported.
12.6. Methodologies 12.6. Methodologies
o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and
o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton multiple bi- o Set up the LSP as the methodology for the singleton multiple
directional LSPs setup delay, and obtain the value of multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay, and obtain the value of multiple
uni-directional LSPs setup delay unidirectional LSPs setup delay
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
skipping to change at page 37, line 4 skipping to change at page 40, line 6
o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival o Release the LSP after Th, and wait for the next Poisson arrival
event event
Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release Note that: it is possible that before the previous LSP release
procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the procedure completes, the next Poisson arrival event arrives and the
LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention LSP setup procedure is initiated. If there is resource contention
between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such between the two LSPs, the LSP setup may fail. Ways to avoid such
contention are outside the scope of this document. contention are outside the scope of this document.
12.7. Typical testing cases 12.7. Typical testing cases
12.7.1. With No LSP in the Network 12.7.1. With No LSP in the Network
12.7.1.1. Motivation 12.7.1.1. Motivation
Multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay with no LSP in the network Multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay with no LSP in the network is
is important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE important because this reflects the inherent delay of an RSVP-TE
implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the implementation. The minimum value provides an indication of the
delay that will likely be experienced when an LSPs traverse the delay that will likely be experienced when an LSPs traverse the
shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane. shortest route with the lightest load in the control plane.
12.7.1.2. Methodologies 12.7.1.2. Methodologies
Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the Make sure that there is no LSP in the network, and proceed with the
methodologies described in Section 10.6. methodologies described in Section 10.6.
12.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network 12.7.2. With a Number of LSPs in the Network
12.7.2.1. Motivation 12.7.2.1. Motivation
multiple bi-directional LSPs setup delay with a number of LSPs in the multiple bidirectional LSPs setup delay with a number of LSPs in the
network is important because it reflects the performance of an network is important because it reflects the performance of an
operational network with considerable load. This delay may vary operational network with considerable load. This delay may vary
significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary. It may be used as significantly as the number of existing LSPs vary. It may be used as
a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation. a scalability metric of an RSVP-TE implementation.
12.7.2.2. Methodologies 12.7.2.2. Methodologies
Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches Setup the required number of LSPs, and wait until the network reaches
a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in a stable state, then proceed with the methodologies described in
Section 12.6.. Section 12.6.
12.8. Metric Reporting
The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
reported together with the total number of values. The context under
which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, the
route traversed by the LSPs, and the testing case used MUST also be
reported.
13. A Definition for Samples of LSP Graceful Release Delay 13. A Definition for Samples of LSP Graceful Release Delay
In Section 8, we have defined the singleton metric of LSP graceful In Section 8, we have defined the singleton metric of LSP graceful
release delay. Now we define how to get one particular sample of LSP release delay. Now we define how to get one particular sample of LSP
graceful release delay. We also use Poisson sampling as an example. graceful release delay. We also use Poisson sampling as an example.
13.1. Metric Name 13.1. Metric Name
LSP graceful release delay sample LSP graceful release delay sample
skipping to change at page 38, line 39 skipping to change at page 41, line 39
13.3. Metric Units 13.3. Metric Units
A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are: A sequence of pairs; the elements of each pair are:
o T, a time, and o T, a time, and
o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds. o dT, either a real number or an undefined number of milliseconds.
13.4. Definition 13.4. Definition
Given T0, Tf, and lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process Given T0, Tf, and Lambda, we compute a pseudo-random Poisson process
beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate lambda, and beginning at or before T0, with average arrival rate Lambda, and
ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0 ending at or after Tf. Those time values greater than or equal to T0
and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times and less than or equal to Tf are then selected. At each of the times
in this process, we obtain the value of LSP graceful release delay in this process, we obtain the value of LSP graceful release delay
sample at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up sample at this time. The value of the sample is the sequence made up
of the resulting <time, LSP graceful delay> pairs. If there are no of the resulting <time, LSP graceful delay> pairs. If there are no
such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to such pairs, the sequence is of length zero and the sample is said to
be empty. be empty.
13.5. Discussion 13.5. Discussion
The parameter lambda should be carefully chosen. If the rate is too The parameter Lambda should be carefully chosen. If the rate is too
large, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high large, too frequent LSP setup/release procedure will result in high
overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high overhead will overhead in the control plane. In turn, the high overhead will
increase uni-directional LSP setup delay. On the other hand if the increase unidirectional LSP setup delay. On the other hand if the
rate is too small, the sample could not completely reflect the rate is too small, the sample could not completely reflect the
dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The dynamic provisioning performance of the GMPLS network. The
appropriate lambda value depends on the given network. appropriate Lambda value depends on the given network.
It is important that in obtaining a sample all the LSPs MUST traverse
the same route. Ways to realize this is outside the scope of this
document. However, it is desirable that the method used have minimal
impact on the signaling process and the method SHOULD be reported.
13.6. Methodologies 13.6. Methodologies
Generally the methodology would proceed as follows: Generally the methodology would proceed as follows:
o Setup the LSP to be deleted o Setup the LSP to be deleted
o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and o Select the times using the specified Poisson arrival process, and
o Release the LSP as the methodology for the singleton LSP graceful o Release the LSP as the methodology for the singleton LSP graceful
release delay, and obtain the value of LSP graceful release delay release delay, and obtain the value of LSP graceful release delay
o Setup the LSP, and restart the Poisson arrival process, wait for o Setup the LSP, and restart the Poisson arrival process, wait for
the next Poisson arrival event the next Poisson arrival event
13.7. Metric Reporting
The metric results including both real and undefined values MUST be
reported together with the total number of values. The context under
which the sample is obtained, including the selected parameters, and
the route traversed by the LSPs MUST also be reported.
14. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report 14. Some Statistics Definitions for Metrics to Report
Given the samples of the performance metric, we now offer several Given the samples of the performance metric, we now offer several
statistics of these samples to report. From these statistics, we can statistics of these samples to report. From these statistics, we can
draw some useful conclusions of a GMPLS network. The value of these draw some useful conclusions of a GMPLS network. The value of these
metrics is either a real number, or an undefined number of metrics is either a real number, or an undefined number of
milliseconds. In the following discussion, we only consider the milliseconds. In the following discussion, we only consider the
finite values. finite values.
14.1. The Minimum of Metric 14.1. The Minimum of Metric
The minimum of metric is the minimum of all the dT values in the The minimum of metric is the minimum of all the dT values in the
sample. In computing this, undefined values SHOULD be treated as sample. In computing this, undefined values SHOULD be treated as
infinitely large. Note that this means that the minimum could thus infinitely large. Note that this means that the minimum could thus
be undefined if all the dT values are undefined. In addition, the be undefined if all the dT values are undefined. In addition, the
metric minimum SHOULD be set to undefined if the sample is empty. metric minimum SHOULD be set to undefined if the sample is empty.
14.2. The Median of Metric 14.2. The Median of Metric
Metric median is the median of the dT values in the given sample. In Metric median is the median of the dT values in the given sample. In
computing the median, the undefined values MUST NOT be counted in. computing the median, the undefined values MUST NOT be included.
14.3. The percentile of Metric 14.3. The Maximum of Metric
The maximum of metric is the maximum of all the dT values in the
sample. In computing this, undefined values MUST NOT be included.
Note that this means that measurements that exceed the upper bound
are not reported in this statistic. This is an important
consideration when evaluating the maximum when the number of
undefined measurements is non-zero.
14.4. The Percentile of Metric
The "empirical distribution function" (EDF) of a set of scalar The "empirical distribution function" (EDF) of a set of scalar
measurements is a function F(x) which for any x gives the fractional measurements is a function F(x) which for any x gives the fractional
proportion of the total measurements that were <= x. proportion of the total measurements that were <= x.
Given a percentage X, the X-th percentile of Metric means the Given a percentage X, the X-th percentile of Metric means the
smallest value of x for which F(x) >= X. Undefined values smallest value of x for which F(x) >= X. In computing the percentile,
MUST NOT be counted in. undefined values MUST NOT be included.
See RFC2330 for further details. See [RFC2330] for further details.
14.4. Failure statistics of Metric 14.5. Failure statistics of Metric
In the process of LSP setup/release, it may fail due to various In the process of LSP setup/release, it may fail due to various
reasons. For example, setup/release may fail when the control plane reasons. For example, setup/release may fail when the control plane
is overburdened or when there is resource shortage in one of the is overburdened or when there is resource shortage in one of the
intermediate nodes. Since the setup/release failure may have intermediate nodes. Since the setup/release failure may have
significant impact on network operation, it is worthwhile to report significant impact on network operation, it is worthwhile to report
each failure cases, so that appropriate operations can be performed each failure cases, so that appropriate operations can be performed
to check the possible implementation,configuration or other to check the possible implementation, configuration or other
deficiencies. deficiencies.
Five types of failure events are defined in previous sections: Five types of failure events are defined in previous sections:
o Single Uni-directional LSP Setup Failure o Single Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure
o Multiple Uni-directional LSP Setup Failure o Multiple Unidirectional LSP Setup Failure
o Single Bi-directional LSP Setup Failure o Single Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure
o Multiple Bi-directional LSP Setup Failure o Multiple Bidirectional LSP Setup Failure
o LSP graceful release failure o LSP graceful release failure
Given the samples of the performance metric, we now offer two Given the samples of the performance metric, we now offer two
statistics of failure events of these samples to report. statistics of failure events of these samples to report.
14.4.1. Failure Count 14.5.1. Failure Count
Failure Count is defined as the number of the undefined value of the Failure Count is defined as the number of the undefined value of the
corresponding performance metric (failure events) in a sample. The corresponding performance metric (failure events) in a sample. The
unit of Failure Count is numerical. value of Failure Count is an integer.
14.4.2. Failure Ratio 14.5.2. Failure Ratio
Failure Ratio is the percentage of the number of failure events to Failure Ratio is the percentage of the number of failure events to
the total number of requests in a sample. The calculation for the total number of requests in a sample. The calculation for
Failure Ratio is defined as follows: Failure Ratio is defined as follows:
X type failure ratio = Number of X type failure events/(Number of X type failure ratio = Number of X type failure events/(Number of
valid X type metric values + Number of X type failure events) * 100%. valid X type metric values + Number of X type failure events) * 100%.
15. Discussion 15. Discussion
It is worthwhile to point out that: It is worthwhile to point out that:
o The uni-directional/bi-directional LSP setup delay is one ingress- o The unidirectional/bidirectional LSP setup delay is one ingress-
egress round trip time plus processing time. But in this egress round trip time plus processing time. But in this
document, uni-directional/bi-directional LSP setup delay has not document, unidirectional/bidirectional LSP setup delay has not
taken the processing time in the end nodes (ingress or/and egress) taken the processing time in the end nodes (ingress or/and egress)
into account. The timestamp T2 is taken after the endpoint node into account. The timestamp T2 is taken after the endpoint node
receives it. Actually, the last node has to take some time to receives it. Actually, the last node has to take some time to
process local procedure. Similarly, in the LSP graceful release process local procedure. Similarly, in the LSP graceful release
delay, the memo has not considered the processing time in the end delay, the memo has not considered the processing time in the end
node. node.
o This document assumes that the correct procedures for installing o This document assumes that the correct procedures for installing
the data plane are followed as described in [RFC3209], [RFC3471], the data plane are followed as described in [RFC3209], [RFC3471],
and [RFC3473]. That is, by the time the egress receives and and [RFC3473]. That is, by the time the egress receives and
processes a Path message, it is safe for the egress to transmit processes a Path message, it is safe for the egress to transmit
data on the reverse path, and by the time the ingress receives and data on the reverse path, and by the time the ingress receives and
processes a RESV message it is safe for the ingress to transmit processes a Resv message it is safe for the ingress to transmit
data on the forward path. See data on the forward path. See
[I-D.shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming] for detailed explanations. [I-D.shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming] for detailed explanations.
This document does not include any verification that the This document does not include any verification that the
implementations of the control plane software are conformant, implementations of the control plane software are conformant,
although such tests MAY be constructed with the use of suitable although such tests MAY be constructed with the use of suitable
signal generation test equipment. In [I-D.sun-ccamp-dpm], we signal generation test equipment. In [I-D.sun-ccamp-dpm], we
defined a series of metrics to do such verifications. However, it defined a series of metrics to do such verifications. However, it
is RECOMMENDED that both the measurements defined in this document is RECOMMENDED that both the measurements defined in this document
and the measurements defined in [I-D.sun-ccamp-dpm] are performed and the measurements defined in [I-D.sun-ccamp-dpm] are performed
to complement each other. to complement each other.
o Note that, in implementing the tests described in this document a o Note that, in implementing the tests described in this document a
tester should be sure to measure the time taken for the control tester should be sure to measure the time taken for the control
plane messages including the processing of those messages by the plane messages including the processing of those messages by the
nodes under test. nodes under test.
o Bi-directional LSPs may be setup using three way signalling, where o Bidirectional LSPs may be setup using three way signaling, where
the initiating node will send a RESV_CONF message downstream upon the initiating node will send a ResvConf message downstream upon
receiving the RESV message. The RESV_CONF message is used to receiving the Resv message. The ResvConf message is used to
notify the terminate node that it can transfer data upstream. notify the terminate node that it can transfer data upstream.
Actually, both direction should be ready to transfer data when the Actually, both direction should be ready to transfer data when the
RESV message is received by the initiate node. Therefore, the bi- Resv message is received by the initiate node. Therefore, the
directional LSP setup delay defined in this document does not take bidirectional LSP setup delay defined in this document does not
the confirmation procedure into account. take the confirmation procedure into account.
16. Security Considerations 16. Security Considerations
Samples of the metrics can be obtained in either active or passive Samples of the metrics can be obtained in either active or passive
manners. manners.
In active measurement, ingress nodes inject probing messages into the In active measurement, ingress nodes inject probing messages into the
control plane. The measurement parameters must be carefully selected control plane. The measurement parameters must be carefully selected
so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of additional traffic so that the measurements inject trivial amounts of additional traffic
into the networks they measure. If they inject "too much" traffic, into the networks they measure. If they inject "too much" traffic,
skipping to change at page 45, line 9 skipping to change at page 48, line 9
relevant. relevant.
17. IANA Considerations 17. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action. This document makes no requests for IANA action.
18. Acknowledgements 18. Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Dan Li, Fang Liu (Christine), Zafar Ali, Monique We wish to thank Dan Li, Fang Liu (Christine), Zafar Ali, Monique
Morrow, Adrian Farrel, Deborah Brungard, Lou Berger, Thomas D. Nadeau Morrow, Adrian Farrel, Deborah Brungard, Lou Berger, Thomas D. Nadeau
for their comments and helps. for their comments and helps. Lou Berger and Adrian Farrel have text
contributions to this document.
We wish to thank experts from IPPM and BMWG - Reinhard Schrage, Al We wish to thank experts from IPPM and BMWG - Reinhard Schrage, Al
Morton and Henk Uijterwaal, for reviewing this document. Morton and Henk Uijterwaal, for reviewing this document. Reinhard
Schrage has text contributions to this document.
This document contains ideas as well as text that have appeared in This document contains ideas as well as text that have appeared in
existing IETF documents. The authors wish to thank G. Almes, S. existing IETF documents. The authors wish to thank G. Almes, S.
Kalidindi and M. Zekauskas. Kalidindi and M. Zekauskas.
We also wish to thank Weisheng Hu, Yaohui Jin and Wei Guo in the We also wish to thank Weisheng Hu, Yaohui Jin and Wei Guo in the
state key laboratory of advanced optical communication systems and state key laboratory of advanced optical communication systems and
networks for the valuable comments. We also wish to thank the networks for the valuable comments. We also wish to thank the
support from NSFC and 863 program of China. support from NSFC and 863 program of China.
 End of changes. 253 change blocks. 
453 lines changed or deleted 571 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37a. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/